What is interesting is who appointed the judges. The second issue is of course who wrote the constitution.

The third issue is that the constitution committee that could have changed the constitution we previously saw, that could have changed the constitution was ruled invalid for excluding minority parties from participating and the attempts to deem Egypt as an Islamic state rather than a civil state.

This would have given a visiting Pakistani more rights than a citizen Copt, and would have mirrored the status of Jews in several Arab countries post 1947.

As I have said several times in the past. The Arab Spring is doomed to failure, unless something drastic changes the mindset of those involved to enter the 20th century. And the main reason for the pessimism is that in nearly all versions of the Arab Spring, there was no one or no particular leader who was leading the charge. In basic terms, it was "we don't like the way things are and want change, so remove the existing leadership. But, guess what, there is nothing to replace it with. There is no symbolic leader to rally behind. It is only a revolution for the sake of revolution. I'm not optimistic.

I have to say that I think the movement and participants are very much in the 21st century mindest... even if they do not seem to be. Taking things in your own hands and taking control of your own fate...

Is a complete shedding of the fatalism that many orientalists so often accuse Islamic culture of demonstrating.

I still think the Spring movement is the ONLY way for comprehensive improvement of the direction the Middle East has been heading for decades.

The first step to not blaming others for your problems is to try to take the reigns of destiny into your own hands rather then throwing your hands up in despair.

Personally I don't see a big difference between the French and American revolutions and the Arab spring. Both didn't go equally well... but really... who was the symbolic leader in the US?

Washington AFTER he defeated the British? (or made them sick and tired of fighting)? Before that you had a bunch of bickering old aristocrats meeting to talk bad about the british who barely agreed to the contents of the declaration of independence, half the country was full of Torries and those who were indifferent.

How many years was it before they ditched the articles of the confederation and took up a constitution.

This is what revolutions look like... unless you are refering those led by the likes of Lenin, Pol Pot, Che, Castro, Mao, Khomenei, etc...

Yeah charasmatic leaders work wonders for revolutions. They never lead to compromise... and always towards extremism. The lack of a leader is a bonus... not a crutch.

"Egypt's transition to democracy is effectively thrown back to square one where it was 16 months ago after Mubarak fell and the military took power. New elections must be held to choose a lower chamber of parliament to replace the now dissolved one, which was primarily tasked with writing a new constitution. The drafting has not even begun because of disputes over Brotherhood attempts to dominate the process.

"For now, the ruling generals will be in charge of legislation, taking back an authority they handed in January to the then-freshly elected parliament. Depending on who wins, they may hand over both executive and legislative powers to the new president. Many Egyptians believe the military wants that to be Shafiq, who was Mubarak's last prime minister. But if the Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi wins, the generals — who have said previously they will never allow the group to dominate Egypt's politics — are likely to balk at handing over many powers."

"The dissolution of parliament now raises the possibility the military council could appoint a panel to write the constitution, a step that would fuel accusations that it is hijacking the process.

"The legal adviser of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood’s political arm, said the court rulings were “political”, lamenting the outgoing legislature as the country’s “only legitimate and elected body”.

" “They are hoping to hand it over to Ahmed Shafiq and make him the only legal authority in the absence of parliament. The people will not accept this and we will isolate the toppled regime,” Mukhtar Ashry said in a posting on the party’s website.

"A moderate Islamist and a former presidential candidate, Abdul-Moneim Abolfotouh, said the rulings amounted to a “coup” and warned that the youth, pro-democracy groups that engineered the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year would protest the court’s rulings."

The fielding of party candidates and "independents" in the elections, mainly by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood got away with this under Mubarrak's parliamentary elections years ago when their party wasn't officially allowed to run in the elections. The fact that they ran them worked at the time, and there was no legal issue (on the surface) with Muslims brotherhood affiliated independents...

But now, they are allowed to openly participate, and they and a few other parties saw it fit to continue with "independent" sponsorships.

The fact that there are quotas for independents means that the brotherhood and others thought they could play the system from both sides stacking the independent seats and the party seats.